Skip to main content

About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8
it often doesn't work out that way. in fact from kennedy to reagan to clinton to w. bush lower tax rates frequently increased tax revenues, particularly at the upper end of the income stream. so here now to discuss this we have cnbc contributor keith boykin a former clinton white house aide and forbes media chairman steve forbes author of freedom manifesto, why free markets are moral and big government is not. love that. hey steve and keith. keith boykin i'll give you a little supply side. you'll hate this. this couples from the irs. the irs is going to use the bush cut, the dreaded bush tax cuts. the richest 1% paid $84 billion inflation adjusted dollars more between 2000 and 2007. that's a rise of 23%. in other words, their tax rates went down. and their tax revenues went up. now, isn't mr. obama making a mistake? >> well, the rich are paying more in taxes because the rich are disproportionately receiving most of the income in this country. the reality, larry, is that in my lifetime we've actually only raised income tax rates three times. once in 1969 to pay for the vietnam war. once i
, that's something that will -- >> howard goes on and on. clinton tax rates on everybody. will it cause a problem? yeah, short recession, but we get defense cuts which republicans would never agree to otherwise, there are human service cut which is we won't like, but the least possible damage. and it's a serious down payment on the deficit. the wall street people ringing their hands are really full of it. i'm not sure what. but full of something because they're going to see a big drop on wall street but it will come roaring back because somebody has done something. so you have him and all their friends and the right and all their friends and the president who i don't think if he can ever get out of campaign mode. it's a full on campaign again. putting one party into -- >> you're right, the amt will hit more people in the middle class and raise their effective tax rate to a higher rate than they were today. and you won't -- >> you have obamacare 4% on everyone, too. >> if you lieu numerically, it doesn't make sense if one side says we're not going to race taxes on the middle class -- >>
we could do is go over the fiscal cliff. we have the same tax rates that we have when bill clinton was president. significant cuts in defense and also significant human services can you tell us. >> katie, let me ask you, before you respond to what governor dean is saying. there is logic to what howard dean is saying. i don't happen to agree with it. but i know where he's coming from. katie, let me ask you this -- katie can't hear me. we'll wait for her to get back hooked in. howard, what about the notion that i'm posing tonight -- i've said this a few times -- republicans better be careful. they're not going down your road and the democrats aren't going down your road. you have middle class tax cuts for the democrats and it sometimes sounds to me as an old reagan conservative that the republicans better watch themselves because sometimes it sounds like they are kind of defending rich people. that's their whole mantra, just defending rich people. and i think that's not where they should be. >> i would agree. if i were politically advising the republicans, which i'm certainly not, i
. federal law signed into law by president clinton in 1996. it says if a person is legally married in a state, the federal government can't recognize those marriages. that's where you talked about federal benefits heterosexual couples get and same sex couples do not. the prop 8 thing is bigger. while potentially it's confined to the state of california only, the question it out there having given the right to gay marriage could the state then take it away through proposition 8 passed by a majority of the vote nurse 2008. having taken that case, the court could get to the bedrock issue. can any state refuse to let same sex couples get married under the federal constitution. it could potentially be narrow or very far. >> pete, as i understand it, let me ask you. this one of these things, maybe the driving one, is defense of marriage act was about paying the estate act. where one of the two people said she didn't have to pay the estate tax because a married couple wouldn't have to. >> reporter: this is a case from new york. a woman named edie windsor who married her partner in canada.
and secretary of state clinton, that if there was movement of any chemical weapons of mass destruction, movement -- now, as i listen to what you're saying, there hasn't been movement. it looks like they're getting ready where they are, but they haven't moved yet, so maybe they haven't violated the red line exactly. >> that's right, larry. they've got everything in place to do that. but what are the possibilities here? u.s. military officials say it would be very difficult to target certain areas. there are possibilities if they're going to load them on the planes. they could use cruise missiles to attack airstrips, for example. they can't blow up the weapons sites themselves, otherwise then the deadly gases could be spread among the public and kill thousands. the only other option according to some people that i've been talking to over the past couple of days is possibly take those cruise missiles and aim them not only at the airport strips, but at regime targets. even perhaps president assad himself. but so far, we haven't gotten there, the big question is can the u.s. react quickly enough if s
these generalities. they'll close loopholes. it's a simple question, as president clinton said, of arithmetic. arithmetic. you can't get from here to there unless you raise the rates. >> so guys, that's where we are as of this morning, and now what everyone's waiting for is which side will make a concrete proposal here that actually includes some concessions? back to you. >> joining us from washington, d.c., jake sherman, congressional reporter for politico. who is going to make some honest concessions first? >> what eamon said is absolutely right. this comes down to one thing, whether republicans are willing to raise marginal income tax rates on americans. they're saying they're willing to raise revenue, but president obama has one criteria in this debate and that's raising income rates on all americans. right now, the sides are in their two corners on this and nobody is moving. so we're really only a couple weeks out and there's this huge gap, and eamon was right in another aspect. there is this brush fire of conservative lawmakers who don't want to raise revenue at all. so this is a huge p
is what has to happen, all right? the president needs to take a page out of president bill clinton -- >> he's in philadelphia with the middle class behind him and nodding and saying, i've got a pen, i've got a pen. i've still got a pen, i've still got a pen. >> president obama owes president clinton a great deal for helping him get elected. number one, we need a meaningful citizen education engagement effort with the white house in formada, next year to build the case for a grand bargain. the official version of what i did and what my colleagues did over the last several months and we need congressional hearings that will set the stage for tax reforms, social security reform and the president needs to negotiate privately and have discussions with congressional leaders of both parties privately. those three things can get us to the promt promise land. and without all three of those, we're in trouble. >> but, david, that is exactly what was supposed to happen between july of 2011 and today. and guess what? none of it has happened. none of it. we're having the same conversation. >> yo
for progressives, just to do it. to go back to the clinton era rates. you get rid of three quarters of the deficit just on tax increases at that point. >> and he says you get defense cuts. >> you can't get defense cuts any other way. and he's not the only one. there's a lot of people on the left and there's quite a few people on the right. i'm glad you're optimistic and a lot of ceos and guys in your position -- if you run a company, you don't need consumers petrified and business people petrified. this is the last thing we need if you run a company. i understand you have a horse in the game. >> but you also have the double trigger. if you go over the cliff, we've got the debt ceiling fight right afterwards. it's not like that's six months down the line. that's in if first month, six weeks of the new year. >> the other thing, depending on where you stand, the idea that we just get rid of congressional approval of the debt ceiling at all, which is that ludicrous proposal that was in the president's plan. that's not -- and would you really want that? would you really want not having any more oversig
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)